Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

If you were rating pianos, based on quality of construction, performance, and image, how would your ratings differ from Larry Fine's Current Ratings?

Hi Steve,

I will build a computer model to find some sort of Nash equilibria based on the following inputs:

How much manufacturers and dealers are willing to pay me to rank their pianos highly and/or to rank their competitors' pianos lowly, and may be how much individual piano owners are willing to pay me a "vanity fare" to rank their pianos highly and/or to rank their neighbors and/or in-laws' pianos lowly.

I will also rank on many different dimensions -- e.g. performance, quality, value, durability, finish artistry, design innovation, ease of moving/transportation, tuning stability, ease of tuning, ease of voicing, child-proof ratings ... ; even provide rankings by regions and price ranges. It's like the Oscars; the more categories there are, the easier it is to make more people happy. And I get to drag it out longer and fill it with more advertising slots.

How is it hypocritical for a manufacturer to be able to be responsible for the preparation of their own pianos? I'm not talking about the selection of the piano itself; I am talking about the person who prepares it.

Having the pianos randomly selected – but then prepared by a person of the manufacturer’s choosing, as one person recommended, would be fine.

Excuse my own misinterpretation of your first post. I thought your plan called for maker selection of the test instrument. There is nothing hypocritical about your proposal. There is the problem of the ease of identification though, even with no markings of any kind on the pianos.

Originally Posted By: Bob Snyder

The weakness of the current evaluation system used by the Piano Book is that it considers only the opinions of one of those groups of people. And in many cases, I am convinced that in an uncomfortable number of cases, a verdict is handed down without anyone even touching the piano in question.

And when you add to that the fact that one or more of the technicians who contribute to this book are, or were authorized representatives for the very pianos they evaluate, is it any wonder that the brand(s) they DO represent do very well in their evaluations?

That's a real problem. It's dubious enough to be making qualitative ratings from the standpoint of an industry spokesperson supported by ad revenues. To hobnob with certain Euro makers, be tight with certain retailer/techs, and give precedence to their opinions, all of that would negate the usefulness of the high-end piano ratings completely.

Steve C,

If the ratings have to be there, and I understand you need as many baited hooks on the line as you can to sell Piano Buyer, I like the system in the last (and final?) Piano Book. In that system the descriptive text on each maker ended with "Consumer Rating" under five different categories. I've never quite understood the logic of the categories, but I do like the breakdown of the components that result in the overall rating.

As an example (Piano Book 2001)

Fazioli

Performance *****Confidence *****Quality Control *****Warranty *** and one halfInformation ** and one half

As a reader, I could then ignore the information downgrade and focus on what seemed important to me. If I were buying Chinese or Indonesian and assuming the risk, I could de-value the confidence category.

Perhaps these categories could be tweaked to better fit the market nine years later.

Of course this really doesn't matter a whole lot if Bob Snyder's points are correct. In that case, you have a big credibility problem.

The ratings are compiled at regular intervals and posted for all to see.

I'm still worried this would be abused by owners or sellers of certain brands. I think that seeing a brand name tends immediately to distort things. You would also have many first-time owners who are excited about their pianos - whatever brand - and will give it the highest rating.

One site that I think is surprisingly successful is the Hurstwood Farm rating page, where there are recordings of the same piece on several pianos. The recordings are not labeled, so any bias according to brand is eliminated. I think the results of the ratings are really telling about tone quality.

How fantastic would it be, to present this on a larger scale, with more brands? Let all the manufacturers prepare their instruments, isolate each one in the same acoustic environment, record the same two pianists (one classical, one jazz), and present the clips to the public.

If a brand is too 'good' for such a test, then they could be pressured to participate, simply by still including their piano in the test, but as prepared by a technician not associated with the company.

There are many people – in many professions – to whom the quality of a piano is extremely important. The weakness of the current evaluation system used by the Piano Book is that it considers only the opinions of one of those groups of people. And I am convinced that in an uncomfortable number of cases, a verdict is handed down without anyone even touching the piano in question.

And when you add to that the fact that one or more of the technicians who contribute to this book are, or were authorized representatives for the very pianos they evaluate, is it any wonder that the brand(s) they DO represent do very well in their evaluations?

Hi Bob,

While what you posted above was true some time ago, it is no longer the case. The ratings are no longer based solely on reports from technicians. Larry uses many more sources including the opinions of experienced players (particularly those that have both a wide and deep experience of brands and models), the information provided by manufacturers, as well as information provided by reputable and trusted dealers. After all, they have deep experience of their brands just out of the crate, on the floor and in the field. All of these opinions are considered on a "trust but verify" basis.

In addition, I read the overwhelming percentage of posts here on the Piano Forum. There are MANY here that know what they are talking about, also with wide and deep experience, and give their detailed evaluations on brands and models, some that they own and as well as those they encounter outside the home. I discuss these opinions with Larry, have him read selected threads, and he seriously considers them among many other factors.

What is also interesting is the statement in the Piano Buyer (and Mike Carr also pointed this out recently) that manufacturers were redesigning the European pianos for “better sound projection, tonal color and sustain—that is to sound more like American Steinways.” Hmmm……the supposedly “audibly higher quality” European pianos needed to be redesigned to sound like NY Steinways to improve their sound projection, color and sustain—arguably among the most valued qualities in piano sound! Inconsistencies like this lead me to take the Piano Buyer ratings with a large dash of salt.

I don't think the Fine statements are inconsistent. Of the three qualites projection, color, and sustain I think only sustain is almost universally admired (by classical pianists but perhaps not jazz pianists). Projection seems only important in concert venues, and if color was universally admired I don't think Bechstein would be highly admired in both the past and present.

I think Fine is just saying that European makers who want to sell their pianos in the the US have begun catering more to American tastes, not that American sound as typified by NY Steinway is better.

The Fazioli site lists five characteristic they feel are representative of good tone: clarity, uniformity, wide dynamic range, selective, and long duration(sustain). Not all characteristics of NY Steinway IMO.http://www.fazioli.com/en/

What I said was "arguably among the most valued qualities"-- not better -- but certainly not inferior either, which the PB suggests by the "audibly higher quality" phrase. One can argue that the European version of these qualities (if one can generalize to that extent, which is debatable) is different and lovely, and should be preserved, and I would agree with that. But one can also argue that the sound qualities of the NY Steinway are of no lesser quality and in fact have been among the most prized and emulated in the world.

If you were rating pianos, based on quality of construction, performance, and image, how would your ratings differ from Larry Fine's Current Ratings?

Hi Steve,

I will build a computer model to find some sort of Nash equilibria based on the following inputs:

How much manufacturers and dealers are willing to pay me to rank their pianos highly and/or to rank their competitors' pianos lowly, and may be how much individual piano owners are willing to pay me a "vanity fare" to rank their pianos highly and/or to rank their neighbors and/or in-laws' pianos lowly.

I will also rank on many different dimensions -- e.g. performance, quality, value, durability, finish artistry, design innovation, ease of moving/transportation, tuning stability, ease of tuning, ease of voicing, child-proof ratings ... ; even provide rankings by regions and price ranges. It's like the Oscars; the more categories there are, the easier it is to make more people happy. And I get to drag it out longer and fill it with more advertising slots.

Perhaps viewed from a different perspective, why not continue using the actual 'criteria groups' of 'quality of construction', 'performance', 'image' (complemented by one or more groups id required, but....

Instead of lumping them all together as to get one final ranking out of it, have the piano brands ranked within each of the 'criteria groups' (quality - performance - image ..).

You would get within each 'criterium' a ranking of the brands. Perhaps a certain brand would come out within the top three in e.g. 'construction quality' whereas the same brand could only be ranked e.g. in the medium category of performance or image.

It would then be interesting to see whether or not any or some brands or ranked at the top in all the 'criteria groups'!

Also any potential buyer could focus on that 'criterium group' which he feels most important for him.

As to how to go about putting up the various rankings, techs and dealers would be well placed to judge upon 'construction quality', players to judge upon 'performance' and a market sevey amongst owners and non-owners for 'image'.

I have long thought that basing a piano buying decision on the Larry Fine book would be foolish.

It is useful background reading for some. That's about it. Personally I am far less interested in what technicians and dealers think about pianos, than I am about what really good players think about them.

For me, once a piano has passed the core attribute of being sufficiently robust and well made, the technician can bow out. All I care about then is its capability as a musical instrument. I couldn't really care less what anyone else thinks about a piano's performance capability if I am considering buying it - but I have been playing since I was 5 and have bought a few pianos. If I was a novice player then I would mainly seek the input of good players.

Steve says above:

"All of these opinions are considered on a "trust but verify" basis."

It is not possible to "verify" opinions. They are by their nature subjective. So if Larry or Steve are "verifying" an opinion and not agreeing with it, then all they are doing is changing a third party opinion for one of their own.

I pay no heed whatsoever to Piano Buyer these days. I think it would have a great deal more credibility if a co-auther or credited senior editor was an internationally respected player (or two). This is no doubt difficult when Steinway and Yamaha artists programs have a vice-like grip on the circuit, perhaps inhibiting some players from expressing a preference outside of the established brands.....

I also think that Piano Buyer is unfortunately undermined as a reasonably independent source of information, by being constantly touted by a dealer on here. Part of the reason for this damage is the constant niggling between Steve and Norbert which, to me as an observer from the sidelines, simply damages them both.

The ratings are compiled at regular intervals and posted for all to see.

I'm still worried this would be abused by owners or sellers of certain brands. I think that seeing a brand name tends immediately to distort things. You would also have many first-time owners who are excited about their pianos - whatever brand - and will give it the highest rating.

How about a fifth catagory? What best describes you? Tech, Teacher, Artist, Salesman, Consumer.

Steve opens himself up to criticism with his constant touting of Piano Buyer, a publication in which he has a financial interest. Whilst the publication may be useful to some people, it is not the only piano publication around. If piano world truly has a policy of not permitting dealers to tout their products, it seems unfair to have one rule for Steve and a different one for all the other dealers.

In his signature he describes himself as Contributing Editor and Advertising Director, which implies a significant degree of influence over the published material, especially as he also calls himself "Piano Industry Consultant" (though without stating which brands use his consulting services). Whilst the terminology that Norbert used to describe Steve's role was incorrect it was partially caused by Steve's own signature.

I concur with you wholeheartedly AJB and was wondering where you were on this one.

I have witnessed this before on this forum, and been involved in, the favoritism shown to certain posters, while others have differing rules applied.

This not only reveals the leanings of the moderator Knapp, it also reveals the desire that poster Cohen has to limit discussion of, and censor, certain aspects of this thread. One could, by extension, think this of the materials supplied in the future book releases. Will the desire to skew the information in the book be too tempting?

In other words, being an owner of a piano dealership, and having a financial interest in a publication of piano playability and quality is such an obvious conflict of interest, one has to wonder if this book release will end up with any measurable credibility.

Same goes for this forum if the moderators keep up with this type of nonsense.

quote from Dan Silverwood:"In other words, being an owner of a piano dealership, and having a financial interest in a publication of piano playability and quality is such an obvious conflict of interest, one has to wonder if this book release will end up with any measurable credibility."

Agree. This issue that Dan notes, along with that of having a publication that rates and review a product having income based on advertisers whose products are being reviewed, opens large questions about independence and conflict of interest. Steve keeps saying -- well, show me the page or passage that reveals any bias-- as if that settles the question. No, it doesn't. Potential bias due to conflict of interest typically won't show itself that obviously but can affect decisions at every point in the process from who is asked to contribute, to the types of questions asked, to how the information is weighted and presented, to the wording choices, and ad infinitum. Sometimes it is what is NOT said as much or more than what is stated that can be affected. The line between content and advertising has also been blurred in the Piano Buyer as certain dealers contribute articles on why we love the pianos we sell. Ok, we can all recognize that as harmless fluff but you won't see that in Consumer Reports either.

If you follow medical and pharmaceutical research at all, there is now good data that the source of funding can affect the results found and presented in research studies. Studies funded by industry sponsors are significantly more likely to find positive results for their product than those funded independently despite the protestations of the researchers that their studies are conducted completely free of bias or influence. These forces operate at subtle (and at other times not so subtle) levels. In some situations, there has been more overt pressure to suppress or change findings.

Of course, buying a piano is not a life-or-death decision (although around here we tend to treat it that way ) and we can enjoy the Piano Buyer for what it is-- entertaining, with some good information and those glossy colorful ads-- while keeping its limitations and realities in mind.

pianoloverus
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 19946
Loc: New York City

Originally Posted By: AJB

Steve opens himself up to criticism with his constant touting of Piano Buyer, a publication in which he has a financial interest. Whilst the publication may be useful to some people, it is not the only piano publication around. If piano world truly has a policy of not permitting dealers to tout their products, it seems unfair to have one rule for Steve and a different one for all the other dealers.

I don't see the slightest way Steve opens himself up for criticsm. PB may not be "the only piano publication around" but I would assume it's by far the most successful, most used, and it's by far the best IMO. I think saying it "may be useful to some people" is the understatement of the century. As far as rules against not touting products, it's also clear that this is enforced minimally if at all at PW. In addition to all this Steve Cohen continually makes posts that help piano buyers where there is no connection to to PB or products he sells.

Originally Posted By: AJB

In his signature he describes himself as Contributing Editor and Advertising Director, which implies a significant degree of influence over the published material, especially as he also calls himself "Piano Industry Consultant" (though without stating which brands use his consulting services). Whilst the terminology that Norbert used to describe Steve's role was incorrect it was partially caused by Steve's own signature.

First of all, the incorrect terminology Norbert used to describe Steve's role is just one grain of sand on a whole beach of similar statements. If Norbert misread the signature, that's not someomone else's problem. I think "co-editor" would imply something like equal input compared to Larry Fine, and this would not be something I would infer from Steve's sig.

Since I assume Steve Cohen's signature line expresses his positions correctly, there's nothing that can be done about this anyway. You don't expect him to write Contributing editor(but not co-editor)do you?

Since I assume Steve Cohen's signature line expresses his positions correctly, there's nothing that can be done about this anyway. You don't expect him to write Contributing editor(but not co-editor)do you?

What is expected is proper conduct with regard to conflict.

To give the appearance of no conflict a decision will have to be made. Either be a contributing editor of a piano quality guide and put your dealership into a “blind trust” (operated by someone else, usually a trust officer)

Or be a dealer and sell the interest in the publication. An attempt to wear both hats, while perhaps from sincerity, to become both, leaves the “appearance” of impropriety.

Example: I read the PB guide about the glowing reports of a piano model. Then I attend the Jason’s Music Centre to look at the instrument in question and lo and behold! The same guy that writes the glowing report in the book sells the same instrument??? This is pretty bad optics would you say?

My response is how do they rate pianos in other countries. Like England, Japan, Germany. Do they all look to America for the ratings, or are there pianos built so well they do not have to really rate them. What are we rating the ones that are considered budget models, should they even be rated. We you rate the $$$$ ones, it's more on a personal attraction, as the build quality is probably not an issue.

As far as Piano Buyer goes, it is a guide, not the Bible. I think they do a fine job as it takes a lot of time, patience and energy. I look at it as a guide not the Bible and more of a guide to newcomers, budget-seekers, than folks who use or work on them for a living.

The only people that may have a problem are the salesman, I wonder why?

Since we're all busy "piling on" Steve, I just took a look at the Jason's Music website, which purports to sell new Kawai and Pramberger pianos.

Raise your hand if you think Kawai and Pramberger pianos were unfairly rated upward in the Piano Buyer. Those brands occupy category 4 and 5, with the exception of Shigeru up in #2. That seems about right to me, possibly a little too harsh a rating for the RX series Kawais.

Do you think these were mis-rated due to bias, or misrated at all? I don't.

FWIW, Steve is one of just a small handful of dealers here who bother to assist potential customers with brands and models of piano he doesn't even sell, or sells against. That's more than I can say for many of the dealers and industry professionals here.

Yes, he's promoting the piano buyer. Last time I checked, they bought ad space here on the right side of the page.

pianoloverus
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 19946
Loc: New York City

Originally Posted By: Silverwood Pianos

Example: I read the PB guide about the glowing reports of a piano model. Then I attend the Jason’s Music Centre to look at the instrument in question and lo and behold! The same guy that writes the glowing report in the book sells the same instrument??? This is pretty bad optics would you say?

Is your example hypothetical or actual? I thought Larry Fine has final say about all reviews/discussions of individual makes(other than ones clearly written by others in a different section of the PB)?

pianoloverus
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 19946
Loc: New York City

Originally Posted By: sophial

This issue that Dan notes, along with that of having a publication that rates and review a product having income based on advertisers whose products are being reviewed, opens large questions about independence and conflict of interest.

This topic was discuessed on PW before the PB came out and I believe Fine also talks about this in the intro to the PB. I found the discussions more than adequate to dispel any doubts about conflict of interest.